Taiwan

Since the nature of this study is a discourse analysis of a major trade agreement between China and Taiwan we must first have some background information to better understand this complicated situation.

For most of its recorded history, Taiwan has had the seeds of a multilingual society planted deep within it (Tsai, 2010). It can be argued that this multilingualism was established over 400 years ago when the Dutch, Spanish, Japanese and Chinese respectively attempted to colonize the island. However, even though these multilingual seeds were sown, European languages such as Dutch and Spanish did not take root. Taiwan has always stood on the periphery of the Chinese Empire, and it has played a major role in the twentieth century in reshaping Asia's socio-economic landscape (Lynch, 2004). These repeated patterns of colonization triggered a wave of competing Eastern and Western influences that have shaped modern Taiwanese identity. Out of these colonizing influences some foreign incursions appear to have left longer lasting cultural footprints than others.

Japan wrestled Taiwan from Qing dynasty China in 1895. Over the next 50 years (1895-1945) the Japanese attempted to transform the linguistical and cultural identity of Taiwan to

5

match its imperial ambitions, and although this colonial experiment came to an end in 1945, have continued to play an important cultural role in influencing Taiwanese identity (Ching, 2001; Lynch, 2004; Pakula, 2009).

After the defeat of Imperial Japan in 1945, Taiwan was relinquished to the stewardship of the Republic of China (ROC). Currently there is a considerable amount of international ambiguity as to the status of the ROC and Taiwan (Spence, 1990; Lynch, 2004; Fenby, 2005;

Pakula, 2009). This ambiguity lies in the controversial questions: is Taiwan a sovereign nation, how to interpret the ROC in relations with the People‘s Republic of China (PRC), and does the now democratic ROC have the right to become an independent nation known as Taiwan (Spence, 1990; Lynch, 2004; Brown, 2004)? It is a matter of historical record that pre (1911-1949) and post (1949-2000) Republican China has been deeply influenced and guided by Washington (Spence, 1990; Lynch, 2004; Fenby, 2005; Pakula, 2009). This relation between the ROC and the USA has been both socio-economical and political in nature. It was through large sums of America aid that Republican China (pre 1949) was able to withstand the devastating effects of the Japanese invasion (1937-1945), and this foreign aid also played a key role in helping China defend itself during the Second World War (Spence, 1990; Fenby, 2005; Chang & Halliday, 2005; Pakula, 2009).

From 1949 to 1971, the ROC (Taiwan) was officially the representative of China in the United Nations. However in 1971, the United Nations General Assembly expelled the ROC in favor of the PRC, which became the official representative of China. In 1979, after the US diplomatic reconfirmation of the People‘s Republic of China, Washington signed The Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), a legally binding agreement between the USA and ROC (Taiwan), that Washington will provide the ROC with sufficient defensive weapons, and that the issue surrounding who is the legitimate representative of China must be settled peacefully. In addition, the TRA also maintains that all national agreements and treaties between

6

Washington and the ROC prior to 1979 still maintain their validity. By virtue of the TRA Washington continues to maintain a close yet unofficial working relationship with the ROC (Taiwan) through its de facto embassy the American Institute of Trade (AIT).

During the Japanese invasion (1937-1945), China was embroiled in a devastating civil war between Republican and Communist forces. By 1949, the forces of Mao Zedong‘s Chinese Communist Party (CCP) claimed victory over Mainland China and the defeated Republican Nationalist Party of China (KMT) retreated to Taiwan taking with them among other things the frayed ties of their American ally (Spence, 1990; Fenby, 2005; Chang & Halliday, 2005;

Pakula, 2009). During this time over two million KMT soldiers became refugees and fled to Taiwan. This large-scale migration tipped the ethic and political balance of power in Taiwan in favor of the newly landed KMT mainlanders (Lynch, 2004).

From 1895 to 1945, Japanese was the official language of Taiwan. However, after 1945, the KMT began the process of re-sinosizing Taiwanese society to bring it under a cultural and language homogeny of a KMT Chinese cultural identity (Lynch, 2004; Pakula, 2009). In 1948, the KMT announced a Mandarin-only National Language Policy in Taiwan banning the use of local Taiwanese dialects and Japanese on the penalty of punishment (Tsai, 2010). This language policy was not aimed at eliminating the use of English, as English was not a widely spoken language, but instead used to consolidate the Chinese cultural homogeny of the KMT.

It has been well documented that English was heavily used by the KMT to solicit resources and political support from the USA and its allies (Spence, 1990; Fenby, 2005; Chang &

Halliday, 2005; Pakula, 2009). Many influential American publications firmly supported the KMT as the official and legitimate representative of China (Spence, 1990; Fenby, 2005;

Pakula, 2009). This support can still be found in various pro-Taiwan American media publications such The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, including the powerful American congressional pro-Taiwan lobby. Kawai (2003) contends that the state will use

7

their education systems to create and reinforce their ‗nationalist ideologies‘. Taiwan‘s National Language Policy was necessary to diffuse the cultural influence of the Japanese and create a bond of belonging between the people and their new national identity (Kawai, 2003).

According to previous research, in 1950s the KMT adopted many English educational policies, and these were designed with the goal of helping Taiwan transform itself

economically (Hung, 2010; Tsai, 2010). Tsai (2010) contends that since 1949, the Taiwanese government has mandated various forms of English instruction at the secondary school level, and that English was supposed to be a semi official language by 2008. Indeed English has been used as a tool by various Taiwanese governments in their attempts of bringing Taiwan onto the world stage through the instrumentalization of its English media (Tsai, 2010).

The historical and socio-political context between China and Taiwan has also led to the development of Taiwan‘s media structure from an authoritarian to a liberal democratic one.

In 1949, under the pretext of defending against communist insurgency an authoritarian press ban was initiated in Taiwan and it remained in force for 37-years and was finally lifted in 1988 (Wei, 1997). This press ban falls in the ranks as one of the longest in history and Taiwan was considered an ‗oligopolistic monopoly‘ to how tightly the state controlled media licenses (Wei, 1997). However, this press ban did little in trying to officially interfere and censor Taiwan‘s English language newspapers. This could largely be due to the fact that the ruling authoritarian KMT government was playing lip service to the deeply held American belief of freedom of expression, and saw it as a minor concession as it scrambled for international political recognition and influence.